The Hidden Cost of Unilateral Accommodation: Why so called Bitterness in Disabled People Is Often a Rational Response
- Guest author
Last update 05 Jan 2026
5 mins
Ableism is most visible in physical barriers - missing ramps, inaccessible public transport, or websites without screen-reader compatibility. Yet one of its most insidious forms is subtler: the unspoken expectation that disabled people must constantly expend extra effort to navigate a world designed for the able-bodied, neurotypical majority, while receiving little to no reciprocity in return.
This dynamic affects both visible and invisible disabilities. A wheelchair user may have to plan routes meticulously to avoid steps or blocked paths. A blind person using a white cane must concentrate intensely to detect and dodge oncoming pedestrians. An autistic person might spend enormous cognitive energy masking - suppressing natural behaviours or enduring overwhelming sensory input - to avoid standing out in social or public settings. Someone with severe anxiety may force themselves through crowded spaces or noisy environments that trigger panic, just to complete ordinary errands.
In each case, the extra labour is often invisible to others. When it is visible (a cane, a wheelchair), people sometimes notice - but rarely adjust proactively. When it is invisible (autism, chronic pain, anxiety, ADHD, mental health conditions), the effort is completely unseen, and any sign of strain is easily misread as rudeness, impatience, or oversensitivity.
Consider everyday public interactions. For a neurotypical person without sensory issues, a busy sidewalk or loud café is manageable with minimal effort. Adjusting one’s path, lowering one’s voice, or giving space costs almost nothing. For many disabled people, however, navigating the same space requires sustained, high-cost adaptations - scanning for obstacles with limited vision, enduring sensory overload, managing rising anxiety, or suppressing stimming to appear normal.
Many disabled people perform these adaptations for years, often out of necessity or to avoid negative judgment. When, eventually, some stop making that unilateral effort-choosing instead to walk a straight path, request accommodations openly, or withdraw from overwhelming situations - reactions are frequently harsh. They are labelled arrogant, bitter, rude, or attention-seeking. Online and offline commentary often insists they should stay home or try harder until they learn to behave properly again. The exhaustion itself is framed as a personal flaw rather than a predictable consequence of an imbalanced system.
This reaction reveals a core moral asymmetry. Society routinely demands extraordinary, ongoing accommodation from disabled individuals while treating even minimal accommodation from the majority as optional charity. When the one-way effort finally falters, blame falls on the person who could no longer sustain it, not on the environment that made it necessary in the first place.
The Energy Budget Analogy
Many disabled people describe their daily capacity in terms of “spoons” - a limited number of units of physical, cognitive, sensory, or emotional energy that able-bodied and neurotypical people possess in relative abundance. A neurotypical pedestrian might use half a spoon to step aside for someone with a cane or to keep their voice down in a quiet space. For the disabled person, scanning the environment, masking autistic traits, regulating anxiety, or pushing through chronic pain might cost three or four spoons - spoons they may desperately need later for work, medical appointments, relationships, or basic self-care.
Expecting the person with fewer spoons to always be the one who spends them on mutual convenience - whether that convenience is physical, sensory, or social - is not reasonable. Yet that expectation is deeply embedded in public attitudes. Acts of consideration from the majority are often framed as exceptional kindness rather than ordinary civic responsibility.
Why Frustration Is Not Bitterness
Frustration, withdrawal of effort, or even anger in response to chronic non-reciprocity are rational reactions, not moral failings. When someone repeatedly extends courtesy and receives indifference or hostility in return, conserving energy becomes an act of self-preservation. Labelling this conservation “bitter” or “difficult” shifts responsibility away from the majority and onto the individual who is already carrying a disproportionate load.
This pattern repeats across the spectrum of disability. Wheelchair users clear obstacles others leave in pathways. Blind people strain to detect approaching pedestrians who rarely yield. Autistic adults mask to avoid stares or comments. People with chronic illnesses push through pain to meet deadlines that flexible workplaces could adjust. Those with anxiety disorders endure triggering environments to avoid being seen as “fragile”. In every case, when the extra labour finally becomes unsustainable, its absence is met with judgment rather than understanding.
Toward Genuine Inclusion
True accessibility is not achieved by demanding that disabled people endlessly adapt to an unchanged world. It requires structural changes (ramps, tactile paving, quiet hours in public spaces, sensory-friendly design) and cultural ones: a baseline expectation that everyone contributes to shared ease of navigation - physical, sensory, and social - according to their ability.
For the able-bodied and neurotypical majority, that contribution is usually small: stepping aside, not blocking ramps, reducing unnecessary noise, offering space without being asked, or simply accepting that someone’s behaviour might stem from unseen challenges rather than ill intent. These acts cost little yet yield significant returns in safety, dignity, and energy preserved for disabled individuals.
When we reflexively call a disabled person “bitter” for no longer over-accommodating, we reveal whose comfort we truly prioritise. A more equitable society would recognise that the moral obligation lies primarily with those who face the fewest barriers to begin with. Until that shift occurs, frustration will remain not a personal defect, but a reasonable response to an unreasonable status quo.
This article is tagged:
